Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

1) I never said to discard it, I am implying that too many people think they understand the philosphy but can't even do the techniques. How can you claim to know the philosophy if you don't even really know the waza yet?

oh, ok. i understand what you're saying now, but i will rest on my previous argument that your Aikido is your own. i'm sure we can both agree that the philosophy leaves A LOT of room for interpretation. some people need to oversimplify it because they can't admit they don't understand. some people will take your stand. i feel that it is best to let each individual decide whether they understand the philosophy or not. no two people will ever agree.

Quote:

Christian Moses wrote:

Finally a question back to you, even if I give you your hypothetical scenario, how do you reconcile that with the 'cannot perform a lie...' quote?

i also believe that O Sensei's teachings contradicted themselves as the years went by. let's go to the end of his life, when he claimed Aikido was about love, about ki, and he generally didn't stress the martial aspect of it so much. IMO though, the fact that he was, at times, a ruthless warrior, only validifies his opinion that Aikido would be about peace. he had experienced everything, learned from his mistakes, and in the end, made a final conclusion on what Aikido should be. to me that is more credible than taking a single point of view and sticking to it.

I draw a parallel to the philosophy of aikido to that of physics of gravity. It doesn't require you believe in it, recognize it, accept it, or discuss it...it will still be there and it affect you

.

This may be true, but when we are dealing with gravity we are dealing with a law of nature. I do not think it is wise, nor do I feel it is appropriate to elevate the philosophy of aikido to laws of nature.
The comparison between philosophy of aikido and gravity merely confuses the issue.

Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:

The fact remains that there is a certain structure and methodology that surrounds aikido that makes it unique and identifiable as aikido. it is not the techniques as they are universal in all forms of jiujitsu. The structure is based on the philosophy and spiritual beliefs/practices of the founder. So it is implicit within the art and you are affected by it if you want to acknowledge it or not.

This may be the case, that one is "subconsciously" affected by the philosophy of aikido simply because they practice it, but is this not the case in everything that one persues. I am sure, that even though I do not buy into the idea of Kant's categorical imperative or the utilitarianism of Mill I have somehow been affected by it, because of the work that I have done in philosophy. It is not that I do not acknowledge that it affects me, of course it does. But merely by it affecting me does not mean that I modify my belief or my behavior to fit into said 'philosophy'. And is there one unified philosophy of aikido?

Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:

As Jon states, I think you are limiting your ability to understand aikido and grow if you don't go down that road, but it is not an imperative, nor is it required to progress.

Maybe I am, but I don't drive my motorcycle in excess of 160kmh, which it is capable of. Am I limiting my experience of my motorcycle? I would say not.

Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:

I am not sure I understand those that do it purely for the philosophical reasons. I have never met anyone that has isolated that as a reason. You can read about it on the internet all day long if it is simply a mental exercise for you. A huge commitment of time and energy if this is someones only pursuit.

That said, I don't really see any other reason to pursue aikido if you are not into it for the spiritual/philosophical reason. I would see it as a waste of time, it is not the most effective way to learn to fight, it is not the most effective way to build fitness. It is only fun so long before it grows old from "tumbling and rolling". So why do it? because it "feels good". You can get that same feeling from some drugs at a much less personal investment of time, energy, and money!

It is true, it is not the best way to learn to fight, it is not the best way to build fitness, but I also train in hapkido which is decent at those things. Tumbling and rolling has never grown old to me, that is one of the main reasons I really dig martial arts. Simply put, martial arts are fun for me. I get off on it. Some people get off on playing jazz, making spam sculptures, or carpentry. Why do people get off on whatever they get off on? Who knows. Anyway, training is really cheap in Korea, compared to the states, and there are not any good drugs here anyway.

Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:

You'd have to elaborate of your "Ueshiba is just simply war theory" I don't follow. To me at first glance it seems like an over simplification. It's like saying Nietzsche was simply about nilhilism, or Rosseau was simply about "people are good"!....which I think is actually more accurate than O'Sensei simply regurgitated "war theory".

What i said was "and a lot of what Ueshiba was talking about is just war theory" not "just simply war theory". I apologize in that it was worded poorly. Not merely war theory, but the tradition just war theory. This mainly deals with jus ad bellum, when it is appropriate to go to war, and jus in bello, proper conduct while engaging in warfare. This stuff goes back to Aquinas, not that I am arguing Ueshiba stole anything from him or anybody else, I am just saying that it is similar and I don't feel the need to hash it out again. Anyway all of those guys are just arguing about what is appropriate anyway.

Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:

O'sensei as a philosopher actually went further I believe than many philosopher have...he did not simply write and lecture about the topic. He lived his life according to his beliefs, and he developed a method upon which others could implement his philosophy in their lives.

Maybe so, doesn't really concern the fact that I don't buy it.

Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:

Big difference between him and many other philosophers if you ask me.

I would say so, given that I would not call him a philosopher as such. Not that I am dissing him, he was a martial badass, maybe one of the greatest the world has ever seen, but he was not a philosopher to the degree that I have not seen a body of work that he has produced like that of Marx, Hegel, Rousseau, etc. I would argue that he did some work in normative ethics, but this alone does not make him a philosopher.